A.K. SAXENA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent, heard finally.

(2.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 18/11/2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondents; whereby, order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the post of Sub Engineer, Public Works Department has been passed. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 15/7/2015 (Annexure P/2), whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 30/9/2015 (Annexure P/3) passed by the State Government; whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents.

(3.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was posted as Sub Engineer, PWD, District Vidisha and department invited notice inviting tender for construction of road which was 22.6 kms. of length, details of which are narrated in the petition. It appears that the construction of the road was being done and same was supervised by petitioner as Sub Engineer. Some complaints were made in respect of quality of the road in the office of Lokayukt, in pursuance whereof, petitioner was charge-sheeted. An enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiry,State of M.P. and vide enquiry report dated 15/3/2013, petitioner was exonerated by the enquiry officer. Thereafter, matter was referred to the State Government for taking appropriate decision and vide order dated 27/5/2013 (placed at page No. 24 with the return filed by respondents), State Government referred the matter for the Chief Engineer, PWD, Bhopal to extend opinion. Chief Engineer given an opinion in which, he disagreed with the opinion given by Enquiry Officer and referred the matter to Engineer-in-Chief for appropriate decision. In turn, the Engineer-in-Chief, referred the matter to the Principal Secretary of PWD, respondent herein for appropriate proceedings.